Should the president be required to get congressional approval to continue military operations beyond 60 days?

Background

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 already requires the president to obtain congressional approval to continue military operations beyond 60 days. Passed over President Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, the law mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities and withdraw forces within 60 days — with a possible 30-day extension for safe withdrawal — unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of force. Despite existing on the books for over five decades, the resolution's 60-day deadline has never been effectively enforced against a sitting president. The issue has surged back into public debate in 2026 as Operation Epic Fury against Iran reached the 60-day mark on May 1 without congressional authorization. The Trump administration argued that a ceasefire paused the clock, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that the deadline no longer applied. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went further, calling the law unconstitutional, a position he noted has been shared by every presidential administration since the law's passage. Multiple congressional votes to invoke the resolution and halt operations have failed along mostly party lines.

Supporters of a strict congressional approval requirement argue that concentrating the power to wage war in one person is fundamentally at odds with the Constitution's design. As the American Bar Association has noted, Article I grants Congress alone the power to declare war, and time limits help clarify the boundary between legislative authority and the president's role as commander in chief. Proponents say requiring a vote forces lawmakers to take a public stand and ensures democratic accountability for the most consequential decisions a government can make. Opponents contend that rigid timelines hamper the president's ability to respond to fast-moving threats and protect national security interests. Some legal scholars, including those on a bipartisan National War Powers Commission, have called the resolution unconstitutional, arguing it infringes on inherent executive authority under Article II. Others, writing in the Yale Law Journal, caution that strengthening formal approval requirements may make less practical difference than often supposed, since Congress already wields significant political checks through appropriations, hearings, and public debate.

What is at stake is the fundamental balance of power between the executive and legislative branches when the nation goes to war. The question affects service members deployed abroad, taxpayers funding military operations, and the broader international community watching how the United States commits to armed conflict. As Lawfare has documented, the Trump administration is expected to request nearly 100 billion dollars in supplemental appropriations for the Iran conflict this summer, which could force Congress to take a more direct stand. Federal courts have historically declined to intervene in war powers disputes between the branches, leaving the outcome largely to the political process. Whether the 60-day requirement is strengthened, reformed, or continues to be sidestepped will shape not only the current conflict but the precedent for every future president deciding whether to seek or bypass congressional consent before committing the nation to war.